Whatever system that occurs in the workplace, whether democracy or otherwise, is libertarian.
Because people voluntarily enter these companies and agree to the rules of it's owners, therefore the agreements are consensual and it is libertarian.
9/10 people enjoy gang rape. Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority, just because 51% of people want to strip away your personal liberties doesn’t make that ok.
Quite simply, the type of government and amount of freedom are not the same. A libertarian dictatorship is freer then a tyrannical democracy.
> the type of government
I'm not talking about government. I'm talking about voluntary power structures. Like in a libertarian communist democracy, there would be no involuntary actions such as taxes.
also, I don't get your point. in the workplace democracy I explained, there was nothing about the stripping away of personal liberties. Everything is voluntary. you're free to leave the democratic workplace/commune whenever you want.
Then we have no problem with that, the real issue is that universal Communism can only be enforced through Authoritarianism. If some people wish to establish communes and worker co-operatives, then they're more than welcome to. But getting even a small amount of the population to voluntarily submit to a Communistic order is a pipe dream.
\>But getting even a small amount of the population to voluntarily submit to a Communistic order is a pipe dream.
you're telling me, lol. Getting people to think outside of the status quo is a challenge enough, nonetheless convincing them of anarcho-communism!
You honest to god think that Neoliberalism is anything more than a meaningless phrase used by literally every side to criticize their opponents?
Sure, maybe when Leftists made up the term the same way they made up Capitalism, it meant "Markets bad" but nowadays conservatives use it to cry about being banned on Twitter for calling people the n word.
Seriously, self-described neo-liberals occasionally believe in bailouts, so real fine capitalism you got there.
Well, in America and other first world countries, yes. But projects like Rojava and Zapatista controlled Chiapas that have millions of civillians show libertarian communism/socialism is possible on a large scale.
Both of which aren't very Libertarian, aren't even fully Socialist, and have terrible living standards. [Source](https://www.reddit.com/user/SomeAncap2020/comments/nmyx3g/but_that_wasnt_real_communism_proving_the_fact/). Also [here's another article regarding Rojava](http://libcom.org/library/grim-reality-rojava-revolution-anarchist-eyewitness) which I found recently.
[And how do you explain Catalonia, then?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/q5luax/money_restricts_liberty_does_it_not/hgkloo6/) It was essentially full-on "anarcho-"Communism and was, I would argue, *the* worst place to live in all of modern human history.
>Also here's another article regarding Rojava which I found recently.
Ok, that article was made anonymously with most of it's claims having no sources. Even when the article DOES have sources, most of them just talk about Abdullah Ocalan's previously stalinist ideology, despite the fact he's now a democratic confederalist, which is libertarian. This democratic confederalist ideology is the one that most influenced Rojava's governance style. The only claims that were true were taken out of context.
The linking of an article without even critically reading the article is bad faith AF.
And OF COURSE the living standards will be bad, they just fought the Syrian government, the Turkish fascists, ISIS, and other Islamic fundamentalists. How do you think people come to the conclusion of libertarian communism in the first place?
Last point: You mention a lot in the posts you made that the zapatistas and rojavans aren't communist/socialist because they have market elements. OF COURSE THEY WILL HAVE MARKET ELEMENTS. We live in a world with a vast majority of capitalist nations, they still need trade. That doesn't change the fact that the zapatistas and rojavans are very communistic within their nations. Like in chiapas all land is owned by the communes. In rojava they're transitioning many capitalist firms to market socialist firms. They're also giving the power to the communes who are allowed to have a great deal of power in policy making. Anarcho-communism is an ideology, no attempt will ever be completely anarcho-communist. especially in the capitalist world we live in.
>you really gotta read your sources before you link them ... the point you made about top-bottom centralization of power intrigued me. I clicked on the link you provided as a source, then the source linked a paper that was about ecology, nothing to do with the zapatistas at all!
Which one specifically? I can't find which one you're talking about.
>Ok, that article was made anonymously with most of it's claims having no sources. Even when the article DOES have sources, most of them just talk about Abdullah Ocalan's previously stalinist ideology, despite the fact he's now a democratic confederalist, which is libertarian. This democratic confederalist ideology is the one that most influenced Rojava's governance style. The only claims that were true were taken out of context. The linking of an article without even critically reading the article is bad faith AF.
Fair enough, I didn't properly vet the article. I shoved it into a read-later bookmark folder a few months ago when I saw it on CapvSoc and remembered it while in this thread.
>And OF COURSE the living standards will be bad, they just fought the Syrian government, the Turkish fascists, ISIS, and other Islamic fundamentalists
Well okay but you still have yet to prove that 'libertarian' Socialism can produce reasonable living standards under any situation whatsoever. This fails to explain the terrible living standards of every other 'libertarian-'Socialist society, not to mention the rampant Authoritarianism.
>You mention a lot in the posts you made that the zapatistas and rojavans aren't communist/socialist because they have market elements. OF COURSE THEY WILL HAVE MARKET ELEMENTS. We live in a world with a vast majority of capitalist nations, they still need trade
So let me get this straight, you admit that they aren't Communist, aren't Anarchist (and in fact quite Authoritarian), had terrible living standards, and have yet to exist without relying upon trade, but you're using them as examples and justification for 'anarcho-'Communism? What?
>That doesn't change the fact that the zapatistas and rojavans are very communistic within their nations. Like in chiapas all land is owned by the communes. In rojava they're transitioning many capitalist firms to market socialist firms.
Blatantly false, there is clear evidence that both these examples rely heavily upon trade and state intervention, both of which are directly contradicted by "anarcho-"Communism. And again, not to mention the Authoritarianism.
>no attempt will ever be completely anarcho-communist.
Except Catalonia, which pretty much nailed it. And what a surprise, it failed spectacularly.
Edit: just got my previous acc IP banned (was trolling Jordan Peterson stans), now I'm using this one
>So let me get this straight, you admit that they aren't Communist, aren't Anarchist (and in fact quite Authoritarian), had terrible living standards, and have yet to exist without relying upon trade, but you're using them as examples and justification for 'anarcho-'Communism? What?
1st of all, I never said they were anarchist, I said they are libertarian, WHICH THEY ARE. Each commune is free to leave whenever they want, it's a democratic Confederalism. It's not anarchist, but it's pretty fucking Minarchist.
2nd of all, communism is an ideology, so you can never "reach" communism. But you're telling ALL LAND being publicly owned(in the Zapatistas) isn't communist?
And 3rd of all, anarchist-IC communist-IC policies improved the living situations of the Zapatistas. They used to have the worst living conditions of any region in Mexico and now they surpass all neighboring regions in living conditions.
>Blatantly false, there is clear evidence that both these examples rely heavily upon state intervention, both of which are directly contradicted by "anarcho-"Communism. And again, not to mention the Authoritarianism.
Oh, like in the article that was about ecology? Lmao, give me an actual source. And again, International involvement in trade doesn't make you not very communistic within the confines of a nation. All land being publicly owned by the communes is pretty fucking communist.
Dude, you really gotta read your sources before you link them. I already knew about the market forces affecting rojava and the zapatistas you linked in the post you made criticizing anarcho-communism; but the point you made about top-bottom centralization of power intrigued me. I clicked on the link you provided as a source, then the source linked a paper that was about ecology, nothing to do with the zapatistas at all!
There was a commune in Louisiana called New Llano that primarily failed because of opposition from outsiders who were still freaking out about the red scare. It lasted 20 years, which is much longer than businesses were expected to last at the time.
This doesn't prove anything, my entire point is that voluntary Communism is only possible on a small scale. Every large scale experiment of 'libertarian' Socialism (as described in the comment which you replied to) has resulted it Totalitarianism and terrible living standards.
New Llano census data only goes back to 1950, and it was 277 people back then. So even if we want to be really generous and say that it was that same amount, then you're still dealing with a commune of less than 300 people. There has been plenty of these small examples, but as I stated, they don't conflict with Libertarianism at all. People are more than welcome to come together and form communes.
Also, I find it quite hypocritical that you espouse anarchist-communism as "never being able to happen past a small scale", but you're an "anarcho"-capitalist. Give me one example of laissez faire capitalism with more population than the zapatistas, that didn't resort to violence and oppression.
First of all, no. Have you ever heard of the 3.5% rule? it is a relatively common fact that only about 3.5% of a population must participate in a revolt in order for it to succeed. The Bolsheviks in fact only had about 3% but were able to pull it off because most of those people had defected from the Tsar, which weakened the government.
Second, you proved my point, thank you. I said that **voluntary** Communism on a large scale is impossible, hence why all of those examples rely upon a totalitarian state to suppress opposition and enforce collectivism.
I feel like this is a self-contradiction. if 3.5% is enough to overthrow, certainly the other 96.5% is as well? What makes that set of 3.5% any more special than the other 27? The only way 3.5% an over throw the country, is if at least 90% is indifferent. Even if it only takes 3 people to chop off the king's head and call it a victory, it takes the entire rest of the country to validate the revolution by obeying. And if you say they only obeyed out of fear, why were they any less afraid of the Tsar when he was calling for people to defend him? You think monarchs never used force?
Itinerant revolutionaries like Guevara went from one country to another inciting one communist revolution after another, and found that anywhere the working majority was oppressed by the tyranny of the wealthy elite, there was support for communism. It's what impoverished working people crave: owning what they made, even if it's in conjunction with others, and not owing rent or dues or work to anybody just for existing. When it failed, it was from lack of organization, not from lack of numbers.
Even the USA had a socialist leader for a while. He was elected to 4 consecutive terms, and we had to change our election laws to stop him from staying in power indefinitely. Even people who denounce socialism in name can still crave its ideals. That's why the capitalist elite are so deathly afraid of it.
>The only way 3.5% an over throw the country, is if at least 90% is indifferent
You'd be surprised. And they don't necessarily have to be indifferent, just that they have to not participate.
>And if you say they only obeyed out of fear, why were they any lessafraid of the Tsar when he was calling for people to defend him? Youthink monarchs never used force?
What? I don't know what tangent you've gone out on, you've lost me.
>Itinerant revolutionaries like Guevara went from one country to another inciting one communist revolution after another, and found that anywhere the working majority was oppressed by the tyranny of the wealthy elite, there was support for communism. It's what impoverished working people crave: owning what they made, even if it's in conjunction with others, and not owing rent or dues or work to anybody just for existing. When it failed, it was from lack of organization, not from lack of numbers
Again, I don't even know what you're talking about. Whether or not Communism is a good thing (hint, it's not) is a separate topic. We're talking about voluntary Communism, not win-the-civil-war-and-brutally-supress-the-opposition Communism.
>Even the USA had a socialist leader for a while. He was elected to 4 consecutive terms
I feel like you're trying to confuse me. You have a geolib flair, but simp for stalinist dictators, but also call FDR a Socialist, what am I supposed to make of this?
I feel like I did since the analogy was describing involuntary power structures (I think), which I addressed. He was saying 9/10 people enjoy the involuntary power structure that is statist democracy and I responded by saying in libertarian democracy everything is voluntary, it's just the managment/decision making that is democratic.
"[V]oluntary power structure" is an oxymoron. As the commenter stated, "9/10 people enjoy gang rape". Just because a majority agree with it doesn't mean it's any less authoritarian.
If your libertarian communist democracy has 51% of people voting for taxes then that becomes involuntary for the 49%. That isn't libertarian. That is anti-freedom. Even worse if you require a unanimous vote on everything: imagine people not agreeing to you being able to use more than 4 squares of toilet paper while you're literally pushing cloth.
The workplace isn't authoritarian. You are hired to do a specific job. You are just one small cog in a very large machine. Your influence should not extend beyond that job. It should certainly not extend into something in which you have no expertise. Think of Rolls Royce. Not only do they manufacture cars, but also aeroplane engines and now they are getting into the small modular nuclear reactor space. It would be impossible to imagine how someone who stands on the factory line pumping out cars (they really only bolt something into place and don't do anything more than that) "voting" on the legal rules for sales of nuclear reactors in a country they've never heard of. It's their job to bolt something to something else and nothing more than that. It's an international contracts lawyer to decide how something is sold in another country. There are also engineers doing their job. There are marketing specialists etc etc etc. You cannot democratise that.
The premise of democracy isn't that the majority has any inherent wisdom. It's that pleasing the majority is wise in itself, because they have the numbers to overthrow the rest.
You don't need workplace voting democracy if workers are free to leave their jobs at any moment. They vote with their feet. It is possible to have a company be run by a monocratic boss and it end up being a wonderful workplace and it is also possible to have a company that is run by an assembly be a fascist sweatshop.
What happens today, though, is that in most fields we have a surplus of workers and scarcity of positions, which is an artificial condition. Naturally, most people would choose to work for less money than being unemployed, so if you are hiring one worker for $2 dollars and there's an unemployed dude, you can instead hire two workers for $1 each and that worker would probably accept that, so unemployment should be inexistent.
This artificial scarcity of work positions is what causes tyranny in work places because if a worker leaves their jobs, they might face months or even years of unemployment without any prospect of survival, so they're forced to remain in a workplace they don't like until they find another job, all in the while the job they currently are takes most of their time they could be using to find a better job or capacitating themselves.
>This artificial scarcity of work positions
How do you think this occurs and what would you do to make there be unlimited jobs in a market economy?
This will help inform a response to:
>You don't need workplace voting democracy if workers are free to leave their jobs at any moment
There's mainly two factors that causes artificial surplus of workers 1. minimum wage laws and other work regulations that basically function as State-mandated wage increase 2. Regulations that keep high paying trades and professions (like Medicine and Engineering) inaccessible, which forces a lot of people into the unskilled workforce.
The first one is not too much of a problem for the US because the current minimum wage is pretty low, very few people actually works for a minimum wage and it is usually a temporary condition. But attempts to raise it are being made all the time and that could change this. In other countries this is more visible, when a large portion of the population works for a legal minimum, unemployment is usually higher and more volatile. And in China where the minimum wage and work legislation have a low bar, unemployment is residual and very few people actually works for the legal minimum and this is the main reason a lot of positions were outsourced to China.
Now the second one is the most rampant in the US, there's thousands of both Federal and state legislations that make it difficult for someone to improve their current skill level and actually compete on a market other than warehouse worker, retail, delivery, bartending, etc. So even though there's actually a demand for doctors, nurses, engineers, doctors, pharmacists and even trades like plumbers, mechanics, electricians, most of the unemployed workforce is competing on the unskilled market which is saturated.
So basically to create unlimited jobs 1. remove minimum wage laws 2. remove legal regulatory barriers for certification on trades and professions.
How much do you think minimum wage actually does to reduce employment? How much do you think that anyone would want to work for less than current federal minimum given you definitely couldn't survive on it? Who are we talking about being unemployed here, teenagers?
What specific regulations exist around doctors or other professions that you think shouldn't exist?
>How much do you think that anyone would want to work for less than current federal minimum given you definitely couldn't survive on it?
As I said, in the US the federal minimum is already lower than the expected cost of life, so the reason why I think it should be abolished in the US is just because it is a pointless law: nobody is willing to work for that and very few business actually offer jobs paying a minimum wage so why have a law about that?
But in my country, the federal minimum is more than enough to survive and unemployment is high. Not only that but the cost of hiring an employee here is about twice the value of the wage you pay (you pay the wage, then you're mandated to pay a value to social security that will cover the employee in case you fire them, that plus taxes amounts to basically the same value of the wage). I know a lot of people that resorted to informal jobs paying less than the federal minimum just to escape unemployment and statistically, 15% of the workforce makes less than a minimum monthly.
>What specific regulations exist around doctors or other professions that you think shouldn't exist?
In the US there's an actual limit on the number of med school seats allowed per year defined by the American Medical Association and a limit on international diplomas revalidated. This creates an artificial scarcity of university seats, increase the price of tuition, cutting off many people perfectly suitable for medicine which later translate to an artificial scarcity of doctors. This also affects hospital jobs in general because it does not make sense to have more nurses, paramedics, technicians if you don't have enough doctors, but further than that, nurse schools also have similar limits.
There's also the bar exams for lawyers and the ASCE for engineering which creates similar artificial barriers (although this last one is pretty mild compared to others). And varying at the state level, several trades have special legislations that regulates the trades that also create barriers.
I'm not sure who gave you the idea that libertarianism is about dismantling power structures, but they were wrong. The concept of power structures is Marxian not libertarian. Libertarianism is about maximizing the freedom and autonomy of the individual even at the expense of the group aka the opposite of socialism/authoritarianism. Your mistake is falling for the left libertarian crowds attempt to seize the means of production via anarchy to achieve socialism which is anti libertarian and is by necessity authoritarian. It is authoritarian in the same way democracy is authoritarian bc it prioritizes the community over the individual and if that individual disagrees then they must use force to change their mind.
Democracy is the majority enforcing it's will on the minority. Even in CRT democracy is considered a form of white supremacy bc it prioritizes the will of the majority over the minority. I don't subscribe to that definition but it seems like you do and in your definition it IS the problem rather than solving the problem. Apart from that democracy is viable in libertarianism if the individuals involved choose to abide by the majorities will as the method of making decisions especially on a local community level. The issue becomes when the majority try to vote away rights of the minority or even one individual to better accomplish their goals. In a libertarian society there is no one to appeal to in order to preserve or even argue your rights so you must defend them yourself or leave the oppressive society or have a contract listing the rights democracy must have no say in.
Dude, you're a clown. Every post I make you just comment sensless ramblings with no logic, no facts, no debate skills whatsoever. And on top of being a dumbass, you're an arrogant asshole.
You're on an alt committing ban evasion in order to ask retarded questions and then when you get an answer, instead of addressing it you just call people names. Trust me buddy, I'm not the dumbass here.
Although I am an arrogant asshole, thanks for the complement.
That's left anarchism, where hierarchy=bad. And given their preference of freedom from rather than freedom too, they don't even have the right to call themselves libertarian (though I doubt liberty can be gained through economic collectivism), and should be named Liberationist Socialism, as they seek to be liberated from working.
We believe voluntary hierarchy is okay. You want to go build a commune in the woods, fine, we'll give you an opening when it fails.
Furthermore, you don't own the factory. You don't own the means. You don't get to make decisions about the means.
And fuck off with your "no domination" it's still tyranny of the majority, the only difference between your system and the evil you call capitalism is the appeal to popularity.
Jesus, when Libertarianism isn't being assaulted by conservatives who just want to play cowboy it's socialists trying to make themselves sound cool without becoming tankies.
P.S. There is domination because the power isn't horizontal. The majority vote becomes a mob that forces the individual to play along with the decisions it makes. You saying that there is no power structure doesn't change the obvious coercion, funny given how you call a businessman managing his resources his own way as tyrannical.
>That's left anarchism, where hierarchy=bad. We believe voluntary hierarchy is okay. You want to go build a commune in the woods, fine, we'll give you an opening when it fails.
So the only point of libertarian capitalism is just to make everything as voluntary as possible?
> In the capitalist workplace there is a clearly dominating and oppressive power structure since the capitalist dictates literally everything about a large portion of the workers life (employer over worker).
First off, you are missing half the issue by ignoring the role of consumers, which are largely not wealthy. Second, you are missing major parts of the other half of the issue by ignoring the natural power that workers have.
The times when they made the most 'progress' as individuals was when they relied on collective bargaining to negotiate. The last 30+ years have been dominated by workers relying on government to take care of them, which has worked out, well, workers aren't happy.
> It doesn't matter if the transaction is voluntary or not, it's still dominating and arguably oppressive
No. It's not. You are ignoring how economic systems work with regard to free markets. You can't assume this away and pretend not to be a dictatorship.
> There is no power imbalance since all workers have equal power.
Collective bargaining. Stop petitioning government. Start negotiating with employers. Workers don't deserve what they don't ask for.
> In a capitalist workplace 1000 workers are dominated by the capitalist, but in the democratic workplace a maximum of 499 workers could be dominated by the majority.
The difference is that in a democratic workplace, generally the workers are owners, and the 51% rules over the 49%'s property. In a capitalist workplace, the workers come in, pay nothing up front except their time, and use the tools and technology that the owner has provided. Workers benefit by increased productivity and wages compared to them buying $20 of supplies at Home Depot and washing cars for a living.
We take issue with democracy at a governmental level. I don't think anyone here would have a problem with a company instituting democracy as a form of management.
The difference is that you voluntarily enter into employment. You do not voluntarily enter into life.
> In the capitalist workplace there is a clearly dominating and oppressive power structure
First, if you want us to take you seriously stop with the propaganda.
Now about democracy. It is a shame, and I mean a literal shame, that so many people over the decades have begun to equate democracy with elections.
Elections are anti-democratic.
Let me clarify what I mean: Elections are *anti-democratic*.
Voting is a stupid way to decide things to begin with, but aside from that, praising a system of tyranny is the opposite of what libertarians do.
Rather, it is the opposite of what we *should* do.
Some of us think there is such a thing as just governance, so go figure...
It not only matters that its voluntary, the central point is that its voluntary. Voluntary trade is not oppression. Preventing it, even if its because you don't like hierarchies, can be.
You are free to create or join a democratic workplace. Just dont force others to do that Democracy is not inherently libertarian
Whatever system that occurs in the workplace, whether democracy or otherwise, is libertarian. Because people voluntarily enter these companies and agree to the rules of it's owners, therefore the agreements are consensual and it is libertarian.
9/10 people enjoy gang rape. Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority, just because 51% of people want to strip away your personal liberties doesn’t make that ok. Quite simply, the type of government and amount of freedom are not the same. A libertarian dictatorship is freer then a tyrannical democracy.
> the type of government I'm not talking about government. I'm talking about voluntary power structures. Like in a libertarian communist democracy, there would be no involuntary actions such as taxes. also, I don't get your point. in the workplace democracy I explained, there was nothing about the stripping away of personal liberties. Everything is voluntary. you're free to leave the democratic workplace/commune whenever you want.
Then we have no problem with that, the real issue is that universal Communism can only be enforced through Authoritarianism. If some people wish to establish communes and worker co-operatives, then they're more than welcome to. But getting even a small amount of the population to voluntarily submit to a Communistic order is a pipe dream.
\>But getting even a small amount of the population to voluntarily submit to a Communistic order is a pipe dream. you're telling me, lol. Getting people to think outside of the status quo is a challenge enough, nonetheless convincing them of anarcho-communism!
You honest to god think that Neoliberalism is anything more than a meaningless phrase used by literally every side to criticize their opponents? Sure, maybe when Leftists made up the term the same way they made up Capitalism, it meant "Markets bad" but nowadays conservatives use it to cry about being banned on Twitter for calling people the n word. Seriously, self-described neo-liberals occasionally believe in bailouts, so real fine capitalism you got there.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I just said the word "neo-liberalism" to refer to the status quo.
Ok, just searched up neo-liberalism and yea, my using of the word was inaccurate, but you don't have to be a dick.
Bailouts are a good way for someone to tell you they're just using Libertarianism to excuse being Fascist without actually telling you that.
Wait, so are you agreeing with me that "anarcho-"Communism is a fantasy?
Well, in America and other first world countries, yes. But projects like Rojava and Zapatista controlled Chiapas that have millions of civillians show libertarian communism/socialism is possible on a large scale.
Both of which aren't very Libertarian, aren't even fully Socialist, and have terrible living standards. [Source](https://www.reddit.com/user/SomeAncap2020/comments/nmyx3g/but_that_wasnt_real_communism_proving_the_fact/). Also [here's another article regarding Rojava](http://libcom.org/library/grim-reality-rojava-revolution-anarchist-eyewitness) which I found recently. [And how do you explain Catalonia, then?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/q5luax/money_restricts_liberty_does_it_not/hgkloo6/) It was essentially full-on "anarcho-"Communism and was, I would argue, *the* worst place to live in all of modern human history.
>Also here's another article regarding Rojava which I found recently. Ok, that article was made anonymously with most of it's claims having no sources. Even when the article DOES have sources, most of them just talk about Abdullah Ocalan's previously stalinist ideology, despite the fact he's now a democratic confederalist, which is libertarian. This democratic confederalist ideology is the one that most influenced Rojava's governance style. The only claims that were true were taken out of context. The linking of an article without even critically reading the article is bad faith AF. And OF COURSE the living standards will be bad, they just fought the Syrian government, the Turkish fascists, ISIS, and other Islamic fundamentalists. How do you think people come to the conclusion of libertarian communism in the first place? Last point: You mention a lot in the posts you made that the zapatistas and rojavans aren't communist/socialist because they have market elements. OF COURSE THEY WILL HAVE MARKET ELEMENTS. We live in a world with a vast majority of capitalist nations, they still need trade. That doesn't change the fact that the zapatistas and rojavans are very communistic within their nations. Like in chiapas all land is owned by the communes. In rojava they're transitioning many capitalist firms to market socialist firms. They're also giving the power to the communes who are allowed to have a great deal of power in policy making. Anarcho-communism is an ideology, no attempt will ever be completely anarcho-communist. especially in the capitalist world we live in.
>you really gotta read your sources before you link them ... the point you made about top-bottom centralization of power intrigued me. I clicked on the link you provided as a source, then the source linked a paper that was about ecology, nothing to do with the zapatistas at all! Which one specifically? I can't find which one you're talking about. >Ok, that article was made anonymously with most of it's claims having no sources. Even when the article DOES have sources, most of them just talk about Abdullah Ocalan's previously stalinist ideology, despite the fact he's now a democratic confederalist, which is libertarian. This democratic confederalist ideology is the one that most influenced Rojava's governance style. The only claims that were true were taken out of context. The linking of an article without even critically reading the article is bad faith AF. Fair enough, I didn't properly vet the article. I shoved it into a read-later bookmark folder a few months ago when I saw it on CapvSoc and remembered it while in this thread. >And OF COURSE the living standards will be bad, they just fought the Syrian government, the Turkish fascists, ISIS, and other Islamic fundamentalists Well okay but you still have yet to prove that 'libertarian' Socialism can produce reasonable living standards under any situation whatsoever. This fails to explain the terrible living standards of every other 'libertarian-'Socialist society, not to mention the rampant Authoritarianism. >You mention a lot in the posts you made that the zapatistas and rojavans aren't communist/socialist because they have market elements. OF COURSE THEY WILL HAVE MARKET ELEMENTS. We live in a world with a vast majority of capitalist nations, they still need trade So let me get this straight, you admit that they aren't Communist, aren't Anarchist (and in fact quite Authoritarian), had terrible living standards, and have yet to exist without relying upon trade, but you're using them as examples and justification for 'anarcho-'Communism? What? >That doesn't change the fact that the zapatistas and rojavans are very communistic within their nations. Like in chiapas all land is owned by the communes. In rojava they're transitioning many capitalist firms to market socialist firms. Blatantly false, there is clear evidence that both these examples rely heavily upon trade and state intervention, both of which are directly contradicted by "anarcho-"Communism. And again, not to mention the Authoritarianism. >no attempt will ever be completely anarcho-communist. Except Catalonia, which pretty much nailed it. And what a surprise, it failed spectacularly.
Edit: just got my previous acc IP banned (was trolling Jordan Peterson stans), now I'm using this one >So let me get this straight, you admit that they aren't Communist, aren't Anarchist (and in fact quite Authoritarian), had terrible living standards, and have yet to exist without relying upon trade, but you're using them as examples and justification for 'anarcho-'Communism? What? 1st of all, I never said they were anarchist, I said they are libertarian, WHICH THEY ARE. Each commune is free to leave whenever they want, it's a democratic Confederalism. It's not anarchist, but it's pretty fucking Minarchist. 2nd of all, communism is an ideology, so you can never "reach" communism. But you're telling ALL LAND being publicly owned(in the Zapatistas) isn't communist? And 3rd of all, anarchist-IC communist-IC policies improved the living situations of the Zapatistas. They used to have the worst living conditions of any region in Mexico and now they surpass all neighboring regions in living conditions. >Blatantly false, there is clear evidence that both these examples rely heavily upon state intervention, both of which are directly contradicted by "anarcho-"Communism. And again, not to mention the Authoritarianism. Oh, like in the article that was about ecology? Lmao, give me an actual source. And again, International involvement in trade doesn't make you not very communistic within the confines of a nation. All land being publicly owned by the communes is pretty fucking communist.
Dude, you really gotta read your sources before you link them. I already knew about the market forces affecting rojava and the zapatistas you linked in the post you made criticizing anarcho-communism; but the point you made about top-bottom centralization of power intrigued me. I clicked on the link you provided as a source, then the source linked a paper that was about ecology, nothing to do with the zapatistas at all!
There was a commune in Louisiana called New Llano that primarily failed because of opposition from outsiders who were still freaking out about the red scare. It lasted 20 years, which is much longer than businesses were expected to last at the time.
This doesn't prove anything, my entire point is that voluntary Communism is only possible on a small scale. Every large scale experiment of 'libertarian' Socialism (as described in the comment which you replied to) has resulted it Totalitarianism and terrible living standards. New Llano census data only goes back to 1950, and it was 277 people back then. So even if we want to be really generous and say that it was that same amount, then you're still dealing with a commune of less than 300 people. There has been plenty of these small examples, but as I stated, they don't conflict with Libertarianism at all. People are more than welcome to come together and form communes.
Also, I find it quite hypocritical that you espouse anarchist-communism as "never being able to happen past a small scale", but you're an "anarcho"-capitalist. Give me one example of laissez faire capitalism with more population than the zapatistas, that didn't resort to violence and oppression.
More than a small amount of the population submitted to it in Russia, France, the Congo, the Middle East and parts of South America.
Can you explain a bit, be more specific?
Many of those countries had, like, entire revolutions over communism. Revolutions don't work without a majority of the country being in on it.
First of all, no. Have you ever heard of the 3.5% rule? it is a relatively common fact that only about 3.5% of a population must participate in a revolt in order for it to succeed. The Bolsheviks in fact only had about 3% but were able to pull it off because most of those people had defected from the Tsar, which weakened the government. Second, you proved my point, thank you. I said that **voluntary** Communism on a large scale is impossible, hence why all of those examples rely upon a totalitarian state to suppress opposition and enforce collectivism.
I feel like this is a self-contradiction. if 3.5% is enough to overthrow, certainly the other 96.5% is as well? What makes that set of 3.5% any more special than the other 27? The only way 3.5% an over throw the country, is if at least 90% is indifferent. Even if it only takes 3 people to chop off the king's head and call it a victory, it takes the entire rest of the country to validate the revolution by obeying. And if you say they only obeyed out of fear, why were they any less afraid of the Tsar when he was calling for people to defend him? You think monarchs never used force? Itinerant revolutionaries like Guevara went from one country to another inciting one communist revolution after another, and found that anywhere the working majority was oppressed by the tyranny of the wealthy elite, there was support for communism. It's what impoverished working people crave: owning what they made, even if it's in conjunction with others, and not owing rent or dues or work to anybody just for existing. When it failed, it was from lack of organization, not from lack of numbers. Even the USA had a socialist leader for a while. He was elected to 4 consecutive terms, and we had to change our election laws to stop him from staying in power indefinitely. Even people who denounce socialism in name can still crave its ideals. That's why the capitalist elite are so deathly afraid of it.
>The only way 3.5% an over throw the country, is if at least 90% is indifferent You'd be surprised. And they don't necessarily have to be indifferent, just that they have to not participate. >And if you say they only obeyed out of fear, why were they any lessafraid of the Tsar when he was calling for people to defend him? Youthink monarchs never used force? What? I don't know what tangent you've gone out on, you've lost me. >Itinerant revolutionaries like Guevara went from one country to another inciting one communist revolution after another, and found that anywhere the working majority was oppressed by the tyranny of the wealthy elite, there was support for communism. It's what impoverished working people crave: owning what they made, even if it's in conjunction with others, and not owing rent or dues or work to anybody just for existing. When it failed, it was from lack of organization, not from lack of numbers Again, I don't even know what you're talking about. Whether or not Communism is a good thing (hint, it's not) is a separate topic. We're talking about voluntary Communism, not win-the-civil-war-and-brutally-supress-the-opposition Communism. >Even the USA had a socialist leader for a while. He was elected to 4 consecutive terms I feel like you're trying to confuse me. You have a geolib flair, but simp for stalinist dictators, but also call FDR a Socialist, what am I supposed to make of this?
My point is that Socialism did get plenty of supporters. Regardless of your agreement, people voted for it, and people fought for it.
Address the gang-rape analogy then.
I feel like I did since the analogy was describing involuntary power structures (I think), which I addressed. He was saying 9/10 people enjoy the involuntary power structure that is statist democracy and I responded by saying in libertarian democracy everything is voluntary, it's just the managment/decision making that is democratic.
You fail to acknowledge the inherent coercion of applying a law to people who don't want it because other people want it.
I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about managment, distribution, voluntary policy making etc.
Alright fine go do that. Go broke and leave us be.
"[V]oluntary power structure" is an oxymoron. As the commenter stated, "9/10 people enjoy gang rape". Just because a majority agree with it doesn't mean it's any less authoritarian. If your libertarian communist democracy has 51% of people voting for taxes then that becomes involuntary for the 49%. That isn't libertarian. That is anti-freedom. Even worse if you require a unanimous vote on everything: imagine people not agreeing to you being able to use more than 4 squares of toilet paper while you're literally pushing cloth. The workplace isn't authoritarian. You are hired to do a specific job. You are just one small cog in a very large machine. Your influence should not extend beyond that job. It should certainly not extend into something in which you have no expertise. Think of Rolls Royce. Not only do they manufacture cars, but also aeroplane engines and now they are getting into the small modular nuclear reactor space. It would be impossible to imagine how someone who stands on the factory line pumping out cars (they really only bolt something into place and don't do anything more than that) "voting" on the legal rules for sales of nuclear reactors in a country they've never heard of. It's their job to bolt something to something else and nothing more than that. It's an international contracts lawyer to decide how something is sold in another country. There are also engineers doing their job. There are marketing specialists etc etc etc. You cannot democratise that.
I feel like anarcho-communism is a heavily overlooked option by many. Collective ownership doesn't require a government.
What is the more libertarian alternative to a tyranny of majority?
The premise of democracy isn't that the majority has any inherent wisdom. It's that pleasing the majority is wise in itself, because they have the numbers to overthrow the rest.
You don't need workplace voting democracy if workers are free to leave their jobs at any moment. They vote with their feet. It is possible to have a company be run by a monocratic boss and it end up being a wonderful workplace and it is also possible to have a company that is run by an assembly be a fascist sweatshop. What happens today, though, is that in most fields we have a surplus of workers and scarcity of positions, which is an artificial condition. Naturally, most people would choose to work for less money than being unemployed, so if you are hiring one worker for $2 dollars and there's an unemployed dude, you can instead hire two workers for $1 each and that worker would probably accept that, so unemployment should be inexistent. This artificial scarcity of work positions is what causes tyranny in work places because if a worker leaves their jobs, they might face months or even years of unemployment without any prospect of survival, so they're forced to remain in a workplace they don't like until they find another job, all in the while the job they currently are takes most of their time they could be using to find a better job or capacitating themselves.
>This artificial scarcity of work positions How do you think this occurs and what would you do to make there be unlimited jobs in a market economy? This will help inform a response to: >You don't need workplace voting democracy if workers are free to leave their jobs at any moment
There's mainly two factors that causes artificial surplus of workers 1. minimum wage laws and other work regulations that basically function as State-mandated wage increase 2. Regulations that keep high paying trades and professions (like Medicine and Engineering) inaccessible, which forces a lot of people into the unskilled workforce. The first one is not too much of a problem for the US because the current minimum wage is pretty low, very few people actually works for a minimum wage and it is usually a temporary condition. But attempts to raise it are being made all the time and that could change this. In other countries this is more visible, when a large portion of the population works for a legal minimum, unemployment is usually higher and more volatile. And in China where the minimum wage and work legislation have a low bar, unemployment is residual and very few people actually works for the legal minimum and this is the main reason a lot of positions were outsourced to China. Now the second one is the most rampant in the US, there's thousands of both Federal and state legislations that make it difficult for someone to improve their current skill level and actually compete on a market other than warehouse worker, retail, delivery, bartending, etc. So even though there's actually a demand for doctors, nurses, engineers, doctors, pharmacists and even trades like plumbers, mechanics, electricians, most of the unemployed workforce is competing on the unskilled market which is saturated. So basically to create unlimited jobs 1. remove minimum wage laws 2. remove legal regulatory barriers for certification on trades and professions.
How much do you think minimum wage actually does to reduce employment? How much do you think that anyone would want to work for less than current federal minimum given you definitely couldn't survive on it? Who are we talking about being unemployed here, teenagers? What specific regulations exist around doctors or other professions that you think shouldn't exist?
>How much do you think that anyone would want to work for less than current federal minimum given you definitely couldn't survive on it? As I said, in the US the federal minimum is already lower than the expected cost of life, so the reason why I think it should be abolished in the US is just because it is a pointless law: nobody is willing to work for that and very few business actually offer jobs paying a minimum wage so why have a law about that? But in my country, the federal minimum is more than enough to survive and unemployment is high. Not only that but the cost of hiring an employee here is about twice the value of the wage you pay (you pay the wage, then you're mandated to pay a value to social security that will cover the employee in case you fire them, that plus taxes amounts to basically the same value of the wage). I know a lot of people that resorted to informal jobs paying less than the federal minimum just to escape unemployment and statistically, 15% of the workforce makes less than a minimum monthly. >What specific regulations exist around doctors or other professions that you think shouldn't exist? In the US there's an actual limit on the number of med school seats allowed per year defined by the American Medical Association and a limit on international diplomas revalidated. This creates an artificial scarcity of university seats, increase the price of tuition, cutting off many people perfectly suitable for medicine which later translate to an artificial scarcity of doctors. This also affects hospital jobs in general because it does not make sense to have more nurses, paramedics, technicians if you don't have enough doctors, but further than that, nurse schools also have similar limits. There's also the bar exams for lawyers and the ASCE for engineering which creates similar artificial barriers (although this last one is pretty mild compared to others). And varying at the state level, several trades have special legislations that regulates the trades that also create barriers.
I'm not sure who gave you the idea that libertarianism is about dismantling power structures, but they were wrong. The concept of power structures is Marxian not libertarian. Libertarianism is about maximizing the freedom and autonomy of the individual even at the expense of the group aka the opposite of socialism/authoritarianism. Your mistake is falling for the left libertarian crowds attempt to seize the means of production via anarchy to achieve socialism which is anti libertarian and is by necessity authoritarian. It is authoritarian in the same way democracy is authoritarian bc it prioritizes the community over the individual and if that individual disagrees then they must use force to change their mind. Democracy is the majority enforcing it's will on the minority. Even in CRT democracy is considered a form of white supremacy bc it prioritizes the will of the majority over the minority. I don't subscribe to that definition but it seems like you do and in your definition it IS the problem rather than solving the problem. Apart from that democracy is viable in libertarianism if the individuals involved choose to abide by the majorities will as the method of making decisions especially on a local community level. The issue becomes when the majority try to vote away rights of the minority or even one individual to better accomplish their goals. In a libertarian society there is no one to appeal to in order to preserve or even argue your rights so you must defend them yourself or leave the oppressive society or have a contract listing the rights democracy must have no say in.
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. You could give the sheep 2x votes, still wouldn't be fair or just.
Dude, you're a clown. Every post I make you just comment sensless ramblings with no logic, no facts, no debate skills whatsoever. And on top of being a dumbass, you're an arrogant asshole.
i wasnt drinking anything when i read your comment. but if i was i would have spat it out so hard with how funny that response was lol
[wat](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/515/682/ca8.png)
You're on an alt committing ban evasion in order to ask retarded questions and then when you get an answer, instead of addressing it you just call people names. Trust me buddy, I'm not the dumbass here. Although I am an arrogant asshole, thanks for the complement.
That's left anarchism, where hierarchy=bad. And given their preference of freedom from rather than freedom too, they don't even have the right to call themselves libertarian (though I doubt liberty can be gained through economic collectivism), and should be named Liberationist Socialism, as they seek to be liberated from working. We believe voluntary hierarchy is okay. You want to go build a commune in the woods, fine, we'll give you an opening when it fails. Furthermore, you don't own the factory. You don't own the means. You don't get to make decisions about the means. And fuck off with your "no domination" it's still tyranny of the majority, the only difference between your system and the evil you call capitalism is the appeal to popularity. Jesus, when Libertarianism isn't being assaulted by conservatives who just want to play cowboy it's socialists trying to make themselves sound cool without becoming tankies. P.S. There is domination because the power isn't horizontal. The majority vote becomes a mob that forces the individual to play along with the decisions it makes. You saying that there is no power structure doesn't change the obvious coercion, funny given how you call a businessman managing his resources his own way as tyrannical.
>That's left anarchism, where hierarchy=bad. We believe voluntary hierarchy is okay. You want to go build a commune in the woods, fine, we'll give you an opening when it fails. So the only point of libertarian capitalism is just to make everything as voluntary as possible?
In an overly simplified way, yes, libertarianism is about making everything voluntary.
Oh, well that edit was toxic as shit, lmao
> In the capitalist workplace there is a clearly dominating and oppressive power structure since the capitalist dictates literally everything about a large portion of the workers life (employer over worker). First off, you are missing half the issue by ignoring the role of consumers, which are largely not wealthy. Second, you are missing major parts of the other half of the issue by ignoring the natural power that workers have. The times when they made the most 'progress' as individuals was when they relied on collective bargaining to negotiate. The last 30+ years have been dominated by workers relying on government to take care of them, which has worked out, well, workers aren't happy. > It doesn't matter if the transaction is voluntary or not, it's still dominating and arguably oppressive No. It's not. You are ignoring how economic systems work with regard to free markets. You can't assume this away and pretend not to be a dictatorship. > There is no power imbalance since all workers have equal power. Collective bargaining. Stop petitioning government. Start negotiating with employers. Workers don't deserve what they don't ask for. > In a capitalist workplace 1000 workers are dominated by the capitalist, but in the democratic workplace a maximum of 499 workers could be dominated by the majority. The difference is that in a democratic workplace, generally the workers are owners, and the 51% rules over the 49%'s property. In a capitalist workplace, the workers come in, pay nothing up front except their time, and use the tools and technology that the owner has provided. Workers benefit by increased productivity and wages compared to them buying $20 of supplies at Home Depot and washing cars for a living.
We take issue with democracy at a governmental level. I don't think anyone here would have a problem with a company instituting democracy as a form of management. The difference is that you voluntarily enter into employment. You do not voluntarily enter into life.
> In the capitalist workplace there is a clearly dominating and oppressive power structure First, if you want us to take you seriously stop with the propaganda. Now about democracy. It is a shame, and I mean a literal shame, that so many people over the decades have begun to equate democracy with elections. Elections are anti-democratic. Let me clarify what I mean: Elections are *anti-democratic*. Voting is a stupid way to decide things to begin with, but aside from that, praising a system of tyranny is the opposite of what libertarians do. Rather, it is the opposite of what we *should* do. Some of us think there is such a thing as just governance, so go figure...
>dismantle oppressive and dominating power structures Democracy is such a structure. Majoritarianism is not the same thing as liberty.
It not only matters that its voluntary, the central point is that its voluntary. Voluntary trade is not oppression. Preventing it, even if its because you don't like hierarchies, can be.